Could Communism ever be implemented in a society with scarcity? If so, how?
Is it only possible in a post-scarcity society, if such a thing is even plausible?
pic semi related, if Kal-Els ship had landed on Earth a few hours earlier on a collective farm in Ukrainian SSR instead of Smallville, Kansas
No, it doesn't work on humans. Like any system of government made by humans.
>>979480
>communism
>system of government
Communism is post-government.
>>979614
your face is post-government lmao
>>979480
Communism isn't a system of government though, is a mode of production.
To go back to OP's question, wether a society needs post-scarcity to get to communism, the short answer is yes, that's why socialism is meant to be a transitional stage where although you don't have post-scarcity you can start building the conditions needed to reach post-scarcity some day, it can't be done within the framework of capitalism because full post-scarcity is against the interests of the rulling class, imagine that, if there's plenty for everyone then there's no longer need for the relations of domination that exist to administrate scarcity, that's why communists see the elimination of the rulling class and their replacement with the scientific management of society by the workers themselves as a precondition for post-scarcity.
>>979471
This sort of system only works in a society where everyone knows each other. Karl Marx saw the system that small tribes of 40-50 lived in, where everything was shared and those that did not work did not eat. He thought the system could work on a world-wide scale, it doesn't, cuz with a tribe of 40-50 everyone knows each other. Would give your car keys to stranger?
>communism
>using a societal model
topkek
>>979614
It's also post-scarcity.
Good luck with those impossibilities.
>>979471
>with scarcity
>lets just throw marx out the windo and have revisionist communism
>every "communist" state ever
>>980034
We could realistically get to extremely low scarcity for the basic necessities, such as basic food, housing and potable water, if population is kept in check.
Basically what the concept of "basic income" would do. Except with "basic income" you could still have a market system for luxuries and entertainment. So you could choose to enrich humanity for the sake of enriching humanity as Marx proposed, or you could enrich humanity to trade for other people's humanity enrichment, like a normal market.
>>980073
None of what you described is communism.
Post-scarcity is the only environment that communism can exist in, in other words, it can't.
>>980084
Go ahead and tell me what communism is.
>>979471
Any transhumanist society will be communist, individualism is a temporary meme.
Also among any species that evolved for It (colony species) it would of course work as that's what they already have.
>>979471
If a literal angel (as in how good of a human they are) were the dictator, it could probably work. But the chances of somebody like that existing are most likely one in a billion. So, it's a yes resting on a humongous "if".
>>982187
>communism
>dictator
>ayy stalin "red fascism" ism is communism
>>979471
> Could Communism ever be implemented in a society with scarcity?
No. Why would anyone think otherwise?
Communism is the very definition of post-scarcity. Or are we confusing Socialism and Communism again?
> Is it only possible in a post-scarcity society, if such a thing is even plausible?
How can you seriously doubt the possibility of post-scarcity when you are surrounded on all sides by free post-scarcity air and are posting on 4chan that runs on open source Unix server?
>>979471
>to each according to his needs
That doesn't mean everyone gets distributed the exact same shit and everyone must be identical. It means everyone's needs are covered. It doesn't say much about how all that surplus goods are handled. It just says there's enough surplus that no one will be left needing, based on what society thinks qualifies as needs.
The problem with the USSR is they didn't even have enough goods to cover basic needs, muchless an overabundance of surplus.
>from each according to his ability
It doesn't mean the non-existent state gets to extract as much labor or else the secret police will come and get you. In Marxism it also specifically means you can't be forced to work or forced to do a certain occupation. You have freedom in work.
The idea is that you work to make society better, and you reap the benefits of a better society. If you think there will be deadbeats, all you have to do is exclude them from this better society. The only thing they are entitled to is having their needs covered, and dividends from the social ownership of capital.
They are not entitled to your labor, or the products of your labor and Marxism is really about labor, and being entitled to your earnings from your labor, and being justly rewarded for your labor, because he was mad about capitalists who derived earnings from capital instead of labor.
That deadbeat is only entitled to access to capital if some day he decides to provide labor that requires capital, in which case he is no longer a deadbeat, and a portion of the abundance of non-scarce goods produced by this socially owned capital, to meet his basic needs. So yes, that means the deadbeat can do nothing all day, and be entitled to live in a studio with no TV, and rations of water and 2000kcal of beans and rice every day.
>>982478
>social ownership of capital
It means society is entitled to the prosperity produced by capital, and that members of society have access to capital required to make their labor productive.
If you have trouble imagining this, imagine a bank that owns capital (not money, because gommunism). You can apply for a loan of capital, and use that capital combined with your labor to profit, and you split some of the profits with the bank. You're probably thinking this sounds a lot like a normal bank.
The difference is this bank has a democratically elected board, so the lending practices reflect the will of society, rather than the interests of bankers. And this bank is not for profit, and does not pay out huge paychecks to investors and executives. It pays it's executives a democratically determined salary, determined by society, and is accountable to society. Any profits from interest are owned by society and only administered by the bankers, and is simply used to loan out in accordance to how society sees fit, not how rich individuals see fit, or to produce surplus which the dividends are paid to society at large, not individual capitalists.
Communism does not mean equality, except, equality in having your needs met, equality in access to socially owned capital, and equality in the dividends derived from surplus value produced by socially owned capital.
If you have no surplus, then yes, communism means equality in everyone being poor, because no one gets any surplus until everyone's needs are met, and every poor backwards agrarian country that tried to have a communist revolution could not meet the basic needs of it's people.
You at the very least, need to have the ability make the basic necessities of life not scarce, and these will mostly be goods with relatively inelastic demand, although they can be substituted for luxury goods.
